Jump to content
Paulding.com

GM TO SLASH 14,000 JOBS- UP TO 5 DOMESTIC PLANTS


Recommended Posts

Which means there will be further job cuts as the ripple effect reaches those that provide service and goods to those plants.

About 5,600 jobs will be lost at the three assembly plants set to close by the end of 2019. That includes 1,500 at the Detroit-Hamtramck facility that currently produces the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid, as well as the Chevrolet Impala, Cadillac CT6 and Buick LaCrosse sedan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gm-slash-over-14-000-jobs-north-american-workforce-n940091?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

 

Edited by COWA
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an auto industry motivated action. There could be a number of reasons for the precipitous action.

 

First, do know Ford announced a few months ago a retreat from small car market.

 

Trump's anti-regulation government is key to these moves. Notably by lowering or eliminating 'fleet' fuel efficiency standards, the American car makers can focus on the profitable truck/SUV market. They no longer need the small cars - a market segment they're not 'killing' - to raise their average.

 

Both Ford and GM also had forward looking aspects of their announcements. Critical to that are things like solid-state batteries for EV's that promise a 30+ increase in power stored per kilogram, longer life and quicker charging.

 

Driving automation is another strong trend and is based on the electric drive format. The impact that tech will have on urban transportation could mean following the trends among the youth who are very much in to the sharing economy. I.e. one car that self-drives when a credit card is installed meaning that automated cars are 'in use' 40-50 percent of the time instead of the five percent (of the time) usage of each vehicle in a family unit's 'car pool.'

 

Think of these 'for rent' vehicles being organized into a mass transit system over the next 20-30 years and if somehow, folks like me were allowed to exist in a time capsule, we wouldn't recognize automotive transportation in 2050.

 

Change, which has been rapid since the end of WWII, is just escalating.

 

I'm firmly convinced that most of those who are opting for Trump's alternate universe are simply overwhelmed by the rate of change socially, economically, politically and in dozens of other ways.

 

Apparently, the logic of following trumpism is based on the big idea that if society reverts to a chaotic corrupt state, change will be thwarted as no one can accomplish anything in a world of constantly increasing conflict.

 

I personally opine that a key traditional trait of the American experience is a broad, wide and deep streak of pragmatism ... the get her done philosophy that considers, first and foremost, the 'do right' rule.

 

That concept of what the job of those representatives is, in my mind, based on the above sentiment. Trumpers seem to embrace the notion that it is all a con in which success and progress is a score keeping exercise where you count getting over on another by any means - gaming the system to win is the holy grail and he who dies with the most toys wins. If you can abscond with another's toys without getting caught, that is a win. If you can destroy those who oppose you; that's another win. The notion of the greatest good for the greatest number is perceived to be the sign of a sucker as 'more for me' is the only measure worth consideration.

 

The pragmatic reaction to these jokers, who think doing nothing means they're supportive of small government, is we can do better. I mean if elected officials don't do government they end up with idle hands and we all know that is the devil's workshop.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a word out of spin out of Bagdhad Betty and Freddie the Fact Fabricator. The talking points must be delayed.

There isn’t a need for talking points. Your article actually spells it out for you. Certain automobile lines aren’t maintaining the level of profitability that GM wants to maintain.

 

- Jamie

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The talking point is as long as Trump's in the White House things like this will be counted as normal marketplace business decisions in a capitalist nation. When a Democrat moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (two years from now) then we can say "See the damned Democrats are running all our manufacturing jobs overseas."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The talking point is as long as Trump's in the White House things like this will be counted as normal marketplace business decisions in a capitalist nation. When a Democrat moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (two years from now) then we can say "See the damned Democrats are running all our manufacturing jobs overseas."

 

Correct! But, let's not forget to award the incoming Speaker and Democratic House of their fair share of blame.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct! But, let's not forget to award the incoming Speaker and Democratic House of their fair share of blame.

 

Yeah, I heard they were contemplating a "sarcasm as policy" bill in the GOP lame duck session but I think most Americans just want someone to do their job in the house and senate.

 

I mean this whole vote for me, I'll cut taxes and do nothing if you'll pass a government salary bill to pay us even more for doing even less because we've conned us into thinking that small government means the voter is happy paying us more to do nothing.

 

If the copious amounts of BS being flushed our way is an indication, we've been buying that pile for most of the last 40 years, but hope for hope's sake (and the blue wave) suggests the voters are wising up ... in most places. Hell, elections are even getting closer in Mississippi.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lame... GM is pulling the lines. The automobiles aren't selling. Head back to HQ for a decent talking point.

 

- Jamie

Not selling? Could that be because wages are stagnant so people that can't afford SUVs also can't afford cars? Or because the cost of living as outpaced Trump's taxcut?

 

Tariffs anyone? Is that why the Chinese are telling farmers where they can stick their soy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not selling? Could that be because wages are stagnant so people that can't afford SUVs also can't afford cars? Or because the cost of living as outpaced Trump's taxcut?

Tariffs anyone? Is that why the Chinese are telling farmers where they can stick their soy?

Not selling? Could that be because wages are stagnant so people that can't afford SUVs also can't afford cars? Or because the cost of living as outpaced Trump's taxcut?

Tariffs anyone? Is that why the Chinese are telling farmers where they can stick their soy?

Did you even read your own article? All the answers to your relevant questions are actually there. I can quote the article for you if you like, but it’s your article.

 

- Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even read your own article? All the answers to your relevant questions are actually there. I can quote the article for you if you like, but it’s your article.

 

- Jamie

Did you read the entire article or did you just skim through the article for what suited your agenda?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their are definite signs the economy is beginning to slow The stock market has lost all it's gains for 2018,Car sales are down, farmers are being bailed out for their losses due to Trump's tariffs and the deficit because or the Republicans irresponsable billionaire tax cuts is now running at an all time high. . By 2020 Trump should have ran the economy into a ditch just in time for the Democrats to take office and turn things around.

 

Anyone seeing a pattern here ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamie:

 

I think what COWA is pointing to is the idea that the rise in tariff's on things like aluminum and some of the other aspects of the tRumpian agenda have cut into the profitability of the marginally profitable (because of diminishing sales of all sedans vs. crossovers, etc. because of the artificially low gasoline prices - also a Trumpian agenda item because it maintains our dependence on fossil fuels and the administrations ignoring climate impacts (externalizing the costs of folks using oil for the profit of the fossil fuel industry).

 

Anyway, throw in the cut in regulations which makes it possible to eliminate 'sedans' as a class of vehicle because fleet mileage requirements are out the window as well as higher mileage rules means that it is possible to abandon low-profit products and, considering the massive changes in the way the transportation system is evolving, means it is inevitable that jobs will be disrupted.

 

What no one has brought up is that with the rise in AI and production robotics, major car companies will never be the job-generator in the next wave the industry historically fulfilled. Said differently, the factory that employed 1500 workers, in the next production iteration, will be manned by maybe 150 or 200 workers because of automation.

 

The reason that electric vehicles are 'the future' is because they are very reliable making them more attractive, especially as self-driving machines, as rental businesses with long service lives and low operating costs. Like I said above, the cumulative nature of the changes to come will make the 'automotive sector' of the economy unrecognizable.

 

pubby

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read the entire article or did you just skim through the article for what suited your agenda?

You see a sly remark...I see projection.

My last response...I've already given this thread more attention than it deserves.

 

I read the article in its entirety. I walked away with the knowledge that GM has decided to cut production lines on automobiles that aren't as popular. They're "shifting" their product line as the market place is changing.

 

 

The cuts are part of a plan to adapt to changing market demands favoring SUVs over sedans and coupes, while also shifting focus to the electrified and self-driving vehicles GM sees as central to the industry’s future.

“We recognize the need to stay in front of changing market conditions and customer preferences to position our company for long-term success,” said GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra, who outlined her new plan during a conference call Monday morning.

 

Who is spinning....You or Baghdad and Freddie?.

 

- Jamie

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You see a sly remark...I see projection.

My last response...I've already given this thread more attention than it deserves.

 

I read the article in its entirety. I walked away with the knowledge that GM has decided to cut production lines on automobiles that aren't as popular. They're "shifting" their product line as the market place is changing.

 

 

Who is spinning....You or Baghdad and Freddie?.

 

- Jamie

 

What are the root causes? I don't take corporate spin at face value, do you?

 

 

 

“I am deeply frustrated with General Motors’ decision to shut down its Lordstown plant and disappointed with how the hardworking employees there have been treated throughout this process," Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

 

The UAW also was quick to respond, and vowed to fight the GM restructuring. “This callous decision by GM to reduce or cease operations in American plants, while opening or increasing production in Mexico and China plants for sales to American consumers, is, in its implementation, profoundly damaging to our American workforce,” said Terry Dittes, UAW Vice President, Director GM Department.

 

“GM’s production decisions, in light of employee concessions during the economic downturn and a taxpayer bailout from bankruptcy, puts profits before the working families of this country whose personal sacrifices stood with GM during those dark days. These decisions are a slap in the face to the memory and recall of that historical American-made bailout,” he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the root causes?

 

 

The taste of the American consumer has changed. Every brand has moved away from cars, most at a fast pace, due to the small SUV/crossover market exploding. Nothing surprising other than it took GM this long to realize where the market was going. Disappointing if you hoped their days of being out of touch with the consumer were gone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I blame trump. Why?

 

He so decimated the regulations requiring increased fleet average miles per gallon meaning, effectively, that GM, Ford and others can eliminate the smaller, high-MPG vehicles (loss-leaders in their lineup that they were making and selling as a tool to increase their fleet MPG) so they could sell their high-profit 'luxury' trucks, SUV's and crossovers.

 

The fleet average regulations limited the number of profitable high-margin vehicles the company could sell by requiring a high fleet mpg average.

 

This is how it worked... you sell 10, 15mpg trucks and you have a 22 mpg requirement for a fleet average. These high-end gas guzzlers are profitable earning you $8,000/vehicle. The question is how many high-MPG cars do you have to sell and how many mpg do they have to get to avoid fines and sanctions?

 

Here's how that works out. You need to sell:

four 4, 45 mpg vehicles or 5, 36 mpg cars or 6, 30 mpg cars

To meet the regulations.

 

Obviously, if the 'new' market for these low-end cars - made low end not only for fuel efficiency but also to meet low price points to appeal to a specific kind of new car market - has resulted in often these cars selling at a loss. I'm going to be arbitrary and say the companies expect to lose $ 5000 on each. (You'd obviously like to lose $5 grand on zero vehicles but you'd rather lose five grand on some vehicles if that is the only way you can make $8 grand on larger cars. That was the market distorting aspect of the fleet mileage rules.

 

Eliminate those rules and you can sell as many gas guzzlers as you want with no regard for the fleet mpg meaning you don't have make and sell any cars to raise your fleet average.

 

What did Trump do? Slashed regulations.

 

What happened? 15,000 GM workers, whose job was to make cars that too often sold at a loss (or lower profit)

but were kept in production because they contributed positively to the fleet MPG average Too bad if 15,000 GM autoworkers get laid off. I'm surprised guard dad and all aren't celebrating this triumph of capitalism.

 

Personally, I'll just observe that most folks look at the 'overall aspects' of regulations have no clue as to their indirect impacts.

 

pubby

 

PS: The tariff's and looming trade war were also being factored into the way GM responded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I'll just observe that most folks look at the 'overall aspects' of regulations have no clue as to their indirect impacts.

 

pubby

 

PS: The tariff's and looming trade war were also being factored into the way GM responded.

 

You've got that part right....

 

- Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've got that part right....

 

- Jamie

These guys don't really understand how the economy works. They have proven that time and time again. If consumers are not buying enough of a product to make that product profitable to manufacture and distribute; the company isn't going to make it anymore. They don't seem to understand that companies exists to make profits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys don't really understand how the economy works. They have proven that time and time again. If consumers are not buying enough of a product to make that product profitable to manufacture and distribute; the company isn't going to make it anymore. They don't seem to understand that companies exists to make profits.

 

Tell us ole wise one how Trump burdening American car manufacturers with tariffs on steel has helped.

 

 

Trump's steel, auto tariffs damage GM, Fiat Chrysler, Ford

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/07/25/gm-ford-fiat-chrysler-trump-tariffs/827983002/
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the graph unfortunately it end in 2017 just about when Trump's tariffs began to kick in .

Obviously the point being made in the graph went over your head. You're blaming Trump for a reported increase in farm bankruptcies. The graph shows farm bankruptcies are not uncommon at all and at times have been very high; to include the Bush and Obama administrations. I'm sure if you go back even further, you would see a high trend of farm bankruptcies.

Edited by El Zorro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the point being made in the graph went over your head. You're blaming Trump for a reported increase in farm bankruptcies. The graph shows farm bankruptcies are not uncommon at all and at times have been very high; to include the Bush and Obama administrations. I'm sure if you go back even further, you would see a high trend of farm bankruptcies.

 

I didn't accuse Dotard of anything . Business Insider and the New York Times believes that Rump's tariffs have a direct relationship to the increase in farm bankruptcies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn't accuse Dotard of anything . Business Insider and the New York Times believes that Rump's tariffs have a direct relationship to the increase in farm bankruptcies.

We all know how liberal the NYT is. Business Insider is left of center and is owned by a German news company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know how liberal the NYT is. Business Insider is left of center and is owned by a German news company.

Come on, this was an issue from the very beginning when the tariffs were little more than talk. Are you saying that because it is from a news source you consider to be liberal that it isn't true?

 

Wall Street Journal, September 2018: https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmers-say-aid-wont-cover-tariff-damage-1537974178

 

Politico, October 2018: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

 

Washington Post, July 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/30/after-trumps-farmer-bailout-manufacturers-ask-what-about-us/?utm_term=.078ed5564942

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were is all Boo Boo when the Cotton Mills in South all went oversea for cheep labor. All these people make a living in these mills never any got bale out for Government. They fine another way make living. I'm sorry I don't feel sorry for automakers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, this was an issue from the very beginning when the tariffs were little more than talk. Are you saying that because it is from a news source you consider to be liberal that it isn't true?

 

Wall Street Journal, September 2018: https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmers-say-aid-wont-cover-tariff-damage-1537974178

 

Politico, October 2018: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

 

Washington Post, July 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/30/after-trumps-farmer-bailout-manufacturers-ask-what-about-us/?utm_term=.078ed5564942

Don't like a news story? Just dismiss it as liberal or left of center. "Liberal" is now code for "don't believe what they say because I don't like it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is yet another thread that was intended to take shots at Trump. But as usual, the OP falls short because he is ignorant of the facts.

1-Auto sales are slowing down across the board. Why? Because sales have been robust for preceding years, and not as many people need a new car right now.

 

2- As previously mentioned; the demand is trending away from cars and toward trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. Those types of vehicles are more utilitarian and useful than cars, and people are realizing that.

Toyota and Honda down 9.5%. https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/toyota-honda-us-sales-fall-9-5-in-november

 

GM was very late to recognize this trend and react to it, and they will pay a price for being asleep at the wheel.

Electric and hybrid vehicles are a significant part of the cutbacks. For now, they have pretty well hit the peak of their potential. The reality is that we still don't have an energy storage device (battery) that has the energy density or fast refueling times for electric vehicles to go mainstream. And science says that until there is a major breakthrough, no better battery is even on the horizon. I think it will happen some day, but for now the technology just isn't there. So no matter how hard we push with laws, regulations, or tax subsidies; we don't have a suitable battery. The only way electric vehicles have been able to sell thus far is with tax subsidies, and that is a false economy.

The only way we could make electric vehicles work for the mainstream user, using the technology we have now, is to use standardized battery packs that are easily interchangeable, and have "fueling stations" all over the place with charged battery packs that they could quickly swap out when you need "gas". Kind of like changing a battery on your cordless drill when one goes dead. But the cost of the infrastructure would be massive, and the payback just isn't there.

Like it or not, we're stuck with oil and internal combustion engines for years to come. And that's OK, because the U.S. is now the worlds largest producer of oil again, and we have lots more capacity in reserve if/when it's needed. We're now a significant factor in driving retail pricing, and that will give us a significant advantage on the world stage.

The tariffs have certainly had an effect on the automotive industry, but that is not what is causing the changes with GM or Ford, or what is slowing down the auto industry.

And there is some hope that the tariffs might pay off. China has made some significant concessions and the market seems to approve.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-stocks-jump-sharply-on-trade-war-truce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, this was an issue from the very beginning when the tariffs were little more than talk. Are you saying that because it is from a news source you consider to be liberal that it isn't true?

 

Wall Street Journal, September 2018: https://www.wsj.com/articles/farmers-say-aid-wont-cover-tariff-damage-1537974178

 

Politico, October 2018: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/23/trump-tariffs-farmers-agriculture-866450

 

Washington Post, July 2018: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/30/after-trumps-farmer-bailout-manufacturers-ask-what-about-us/?utm_term=.078ed5564942

What I am saying is there has always been huge financial risks for farmers. Farms have been going bankrupt for decades and large agricultural corporations have been buying them out. Farmers have been subsidized by the government for decades attempting to keep them solvent. Farmers have probably received more government assistance than any other type of business. Hell, they get money from the government not to leave fields vacant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...